Court, in Reverse, Upholds State’s Term Limits Law

SACRAMENTO —  A federal appeals court late Friday upheld California’s term limits law, reversing an earlier decision and sending shocks through the state’s political establishment.

In a split decision, a special 11-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that California voters had a constitutional right to limit the terms of its legislators, and to ban them for life from seeking their old seats once they had served their tenure.

The ruling makes it likely that term limits will be in place in the 1998 election, though legislators challenging the law are sure to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

If the decision stands, more than two dozen state lawmakers will be forced from office next year, including leaders of both houses. In a ripple effect, the decision will probably prompt many of them to run for statewide office and other seats. It also will open up leadership struggles in the state Senate and Assembly.

The decision came on a 9-2 vote, with four judges writing separate concurring opinions. The majority decision by Judge David Thompson concluded that limits placed on voting rights by the 1990 law were “not severe.”

The majority also rejected an opinion issued in October by a three-judge panel of the appellate court that struck down term limits. That earlier opinion concluded that voters were not explicitly informed of the implications of the 1990 initiative.

“Term limits on state officeholders is a neutral candidacy qualification, such as age or residence, which the state certainly has the right to impose,” the majority held Friday.

Citing proponents’ contention that term limits reduce the power of incumbency, the court said: “Long-term entrenched legislators may obtain excessive power which in turn may discourage other qualified candidates from running for office, or may provide the incumbent with an unfair advantage in winning reelection.”

Opponents of terms limits vowed to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. “We remain committed to the proposition that term limits are unconstitutional, and we intend to appeal,” said attorney Joe Remcho, representing legislators challenging the law.

The U.S. Supreme Court has not ruled whether states can limit legislative terms, although the high court in 1995 struck down congressional term limit laws imposed by several states including California.

Friday’s opinion was hailed by term limit backers, including California Secretary of State Bill Jones, who proclaimed that “the will of the people will be in effect” for the 1998 election year.

“This is a great day for the public and a great day for the process of politics and government,” Jones said. “This [decision] just reaffirms the voters’ position in support of term limits, a position they took clear back in 1990.”

Deborah J. La Fetra, of the Pacific Legal Foundation, which also was defending term limits, said: “It means that the people’s votes have meaning and that California will reap the benefits of term limits for years and years to come.”

California’s term limits law restricts Assembly members to three two-year terms and state senators to two four-year terms. This state is one of seven that bars so-called termed-out lawmakers for life from running again--a point that was the focus of the attack by lawmakers who wanted to remain in office, or return.

Most states that have term limits allow state politicians to seek election after they have sat out a term.

With 26 legislators facing forced retirement next year, the ruling will have a dramatic effect on next year’s election. Among those facing an ouster are Senate President Pro Tem Bill Lockyer (D-Hayward) and Assembly Speaker Cruz Bustamante (D-Fresno).

Lockyer and Bustamante had said they would prefer to remain in the Legislature. But with term limits in effect, both may run for statewide office.

Sen. Jim Brulte (R-Rancho Cucamonga) predicted a fight among Democrats in the Senate over Lockyer’s replacement. Sen. Richard G. Polanco (D-Los Angeles) is among those vying for the top spot, and others probably will reemerge.

“It won’t be a very merry Christmas and a happy new year for some incumbent legislators,” said Brulte, who can serve seven more years before he is forced out.

The ruling affects only legislative terms, not the portions of the 1990 initiative, Proposition 140, that limit statewide officeholders such as governor and attorney general to two four-year terms.

Voters approved Proposition 140, a constitutional amendment, by a margin of 52%-48%, or 242,000 votes of 6.6 million cast that year.

The California Supreme Court upheld term limits in 1991. But former Assemblyman Tom Bates, a Berkeley Democrat forced from office in 1996, filed a new lawsuit in federal court in 1995 claiming that the measure violated his 1st Amendment rights to run for office and the rights of his supporters to vote for him.

Bates was joined by more than two dozen current and former Democratic lawmakers, as well as more voters who oppose term limits.

In April, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken sided with Bates, concluding that the lifetime ban was unconstitutional because it denied voters the right to vote for experienced legislators.

The case then moved to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The three-judge panel issued the initial opinion in October, but did not decide the broad question of the constitutionality of the term limits law. Instead, the appellate court held that voters were not fully informed about the initiative’s consequences, specifically that the measure contained the lifetime ban.

“Absent adequate notice,” the panel said in October, “we cannot hold that the people intended severely to burden their most fundamental right, the right to vote. In matters this important, the state simply must tell its citizens what they are voting on.”

The decision--replaced by Friday’s ruling of the 11-judge panel--startled term limit backers and proponents alike. They had assumed the court would decide the underlying issue.

Contributing to this report were Times staff writers Maria La Ganga in San Francisco and Jenifer Warren and Carl Ingram in Sacramento.